Lots of guessing on the particulars of his truck but AutoZone (and other FLAPS) has a replacement transmission for $1600 with a good warranty. A few hundred to install it if he wasn't inclined to do it himself and he'd be back on the road.

Why do people do financial hari-kari to themselves so casually?

Yea, it can be pretty amazing to find out how affordable some EOTW car crisis's are. My kid's Focus puked an automatic. My local mechanic had one shipped straight from the Ford's rebuilder, in a plane white box. It was installed for $2k. It came with a significant warranty, and was roughly half of what the dealer would of charged to install the same transmission from "Ford".

I have a Focus, and just found out that my transmission will probably fail prematurely due to Ford's screwing up. Lovely.

Not surprised. Honda went through that with one of their auto transmissions. So did VW.

Someone explained that the Honda filter was non-serviceable without taking the transmission apart. VW did that ten or fifteen years ago with transmissions that did not even come with a dipstick. Supposedly it had a non-serviceable fluid and filter too.

Of course a few years after these things reached the road, the transmissions started wearing out b/c they could not serviced.

I recall someone also describing the Honda transmission as a "glass transmission" aka fragile.

I have had a long line of manual transmissions from maybe ten different brands. None of the transmissions ever wore out. I've had to replace clutches but a clutch job is not nearly as expensive and I can do them myself. And clutches wear out very slowly if treated well.

Not as convenient as a slushbox but I still like to drive them and like the savings. I fear they are fading away fast though.

Good luck with your Focus. I like that car and it is on my "short list". Budget now so later it isn't a budget buster.

Lots of guessing on the particulars of his truck but AutoZone (and other FLAPS) has a replacement transmission for $1600 with a good warranty. A few hundred to install it if he wasn't inclined to do it himself and he'd be back on the road.

Why do people do financial hari-kari to themselves so casually?

Yea, it can be pretty amazing to find out how affordable some EOTW car crisis's are. My kid's Focus puked an automatic. My local mechanic had one shipped straight from the Ford's rebuilder, in a plane white box. It was installed for $2k. It came with a significant warranty, and was roughly half of what the dealer would of charged to install the same transmission from "Ford".

I have a Focus, and just found out that my transmission will probably fail prematurely due to Ford's screwing up. Lovely.

I have a ford as well, a 2013 focus and they just completely replaced my transmission last month. They told me that they have extended the warranties to cover any transmission-related issues for 150k miles, which I really think should be longer.

I have had a long line of manual transmissions from maybe ten different brands. None of the transmissions ever wore out. I've had to replace clutches but a clutch job is not nearly as expensive and I can do them myself. And clutches wear out very slowly if treated well.

Not as convenient as a slushbox but I still like to drive them and like the savings. I fear they are fading away fast though.

I worry about this too. I had a manual before I moved in to Manhattan 5 or 6 years ago, and worry that I won't be able to find one (that is not a farm truck or sports car) when I move back out. I actually enjoy driving manual, gas savings and ease of upkeep aside. Of course maybe I won't say that with two toddlers vying for my attention in the back seat in a couple years...

I also like that your car is harder to steal and (usually) cheaper to insure.

They lost more than 100k to a ponzi scheme many years ago (before I knew them), the leader said he had 'good christian values' so they trusted him. Now they are involved in a pyramid scheme(life leadership), which couldn't possibly be a scam because it has 'good christian values. They refuse to see any similarity. Their kids have all tried to talk them out of this but they refuse to listen.

Recently their business went bankrupt and for whatever reason it wasn't tax shielded, so now they are going bankrupt as well. Because they have really bad credit history they couldn't get a car loan, so they LEASED a brand new Ford Fusion. Never mind that they had working cars and could have bought a nicer one with a few months of their lease payments. They changed their minds and decided they wanted the equity instead so they gave it back(presumably taking whatever penalities as well), and buying a used 2014 Lincoln for 20k! (I can only imagine the terms of this loan...).

From my understanding this could either completely derail their bankruptcy at worst, get taken back if the court thinks it isn't a reasonable expense, or maybe worst of all, they could agree to keep paying the payments even after they get out of bankruptcy.

I'm scared shitless of having to fund them when they are older.

sh*t, druth! What happens when they die? I assume you and your SO will inherit it, right? A friend of mine in Brazil just inherited a debt from his mother. Id be very scared!

sh*t, druth! What happens when they die? I assume you and your SO will inherit it, right? A friend of mine in Brazil just inherited a debt from his mother. Id be very scared!

Fortunately, debts don't get inherited here in the US (except for long-term care debts in a few states like Pennsylvania, which's another topic, grumble grumble...) All that can happen is that the debts get repaid by anything in the dead person's estate, and if that isn't enough, then anything else gets written off. That doesn't stop debt collectors from calling you and strongly implying they're your responsibility to pay, on the other hand - and if you do give in, you can be legally obliged to keep paying, so don't.

sh*t, druth! What happens when they die? I assume you and your SO will inherit it, right? A friend of mine in Brazil just inherited a debt from his mother. Id be very scared!

Fortunately, debts don't get inherited here in the US (except for long-term care debts in a few states like Pennsylvania, which's another topic, grumble grumble...) All that can happen is that the debts get repaid by anything in the dead person's estate, and if that isn't enough, then anything else gets written off. That doesn't stop debt collectors from calling you and strongly implying they're your responsibility to pay, on the other hand - and if you do give in, you can be legally obliged to keep paying, so don't.

Yup, the estate will pay the debts, and I expect there will be nothing left after. Thank goodness for social security and that they can't take it as a lump sum because they are probably already close to having nothing and we certainly aren't giving them anything!

Can you inherit somebody else's debts in other countries? That's horrible. "Your parents were irresponsible, so screw you forever"

sh*t, druth! What happens when they die? I assume you and your SO will inherit it, right? A friend of mine in Brazil just inherited a debt from his mother. Id be very scared!

Fortunately, debts don't get inherited here in the US (except for long-term care debts in a few states like Pennsylvania, which's another topic, grumble grumble...) All that can happen is that the debts get repaid by anything in the dead person's estate, and if that isn't enough, then anything else gets written off. That doesn't stop debt collectors from calling you and strongly implying they're your responsibility to pay, on the other hand - and if you do give in, you can be legally obliged to keep paying, so don't.

Yup, the estate will pay the debts, and I expect there will be nothing left after. Thank goodness for social security and that they can't take it as a lump sum because they are probably already close to having nothing and we certainly aren't giving them anything!

Can you inherit somebody else's debts in other countries? That's horrible. "Your parents were irresponsible, so screw you forever"

Your mindset is in the wrong frame to understand it; atomizing people and their lives. The best base example is of a wife & husband with a fully unified financial structure: their names are both on everything, everything is a joint account, and so forth. You can probably grasp that if the husband passes away that the debts he accumulated don't simply vanish. The wife still has them. The debts aren't considered something he raised but something they raised.

Similarly, in other cultures an estate can be considered a family's and not an individual's. In that view, the passing on of debts isn't too strange. In that view, the way we have it can be considered strange for reasons I won't go into unless you are curious.

sh*t, druth! What happens when they die? I assume you and your SO will inherit it, right? A friend of mine in Brazil just inherited a debt from his mother. Id be very scared!

Fortunately, debts don't get inherited here in the US (except for long-term care debts in a few states like Pennsylvania, which's another topic, grumble grumble...) All that can happen is that the debts get repaid by anything in the dead person's estate, and if that isn't enough, then anything else gets written off. That doesn't stop debt collectors from calling you and strongly implying they're your responsibility to pay, on the other hand - and if you do give in, you can be legally obliged to keep paying, so don't.

Yup, the estate will pay the debts, and I expect there will be nothing left after. Thank goodness for social security and that they can't take it as a lump sum because they are probably already close to having nothing and we certainly aren't giving them anything!

Can you inherit somebody else's debts in other countries? That's horrible. "Your parents were irresponsible, so screw you forever"

Your mindset is in the wrong frame to understand it; atomizing people and their lives. The best base example is of a wife & husband with a fully unified financial structure: their names are both on everything, everything is a joint account, and so forth. You can probably grasp that if the husband passes away that the debts he accumulated don't simply vanish. The wife still has them. The debts aren't considered something he raised but something they raised.

Similarly, in other cultures an estate can be considered a family's and not an individual's. In that view, the passing on of debts isn't too strange. In that view, the way we have it can be considered strange for reasons I won't go into unless you are curious.

sh*t, druth! What happens when they die? I assume you and your SO will inherit it, right? A friend of mine in Brazil just inherited a debt from his mother. Id be very scared!

Fortunately, debts don't get inherited here in the US (except for long-term care debts in a few states like Pennsylvania, which's another topic, grumble grumble...) All that can happen is that the debts get repaid by anything in the dead person's estate, and if that isn't enough, then anything else gets written off. That doesn't stop debt collectors from calling you and strongly implying they're your responsibility to pay, on the other hand - and if you do give in, you can be legally obliged to keep paying, so don't.

Yup, the estate will pay the debts, and I expect there will be nothing left after. Thank goodness for social security and that they can't take it as a lump sum because they are probably already close to having nothing and we certainly aren't giving them anything!

Can you inherit somebody else's debts in other countries? That's horrible. "Your parents were irresponsible, so screw you forever"

Couldn't you go the other way as well, dont inherit your parents assets, just cause they were good with money why should you benefit?

Can you inherit somebody else's debts in other countries? That's horrible. "Your parents were irresponsible, so screw you forever"

Couldn't you go the other way as well, dont inherit your parents assets, just cause they were good with money why should you benefit?

To be fair, isn't that how many of us feel here? We AREN'T expecting (or at least depending on) money from our parents? If they want to leave it to charity, that's fine with me. It's not mine just because they were good with money.

sh*t, druth! What happens when they die? I assume you and your SO will inherit it, right? A friend of mine in Brazil just inherited a debt from his mother. Id be very scared!

Fortunately, debts don't get inherited here in the US (except for long-term care debts in a few states like Pennsylvania, which's another topic, grumble grumble...) All that can happen is that the debts get repaid by anything in the dead person's estate, and if that isn't enough, then anything else gets written off. That doesn't stop debt collectors from calling you and strongly implying they're your responsibility to pay, on the other hand - and if you do give in, you can be legally obliged to keep paying, so don't.

Yup, the estate will pay the debts, and I expect there will be nothing left after. Thank goodness for social security and that they can't take it as a lump sum because they are probably already close to having nothing and we certainly aren't giving them anything!

Can you inherit somebody else's debts in other countries? That's horrible. "Your parents were irresponsible, so screw you forever"

Your mindset is in the wrong frame to understand it; atomizing people and their lives. The best base example is of a wife & husband with a fully unified financial structure: their names are both on everything, everything is a joint account, and so forth. You can probably grasp that if the husband passes away that the debts he accumulated don't simply vanish. The wife still has them. The debts aren't considered something he raised but something they raised.

Similarly, in other cultures an estate can be considered a family's and not an individual's. In that view, the passing on of debts isn't too strange. In that view, the way we have it can be considered strange for reasons I won't go into unless you are curious.

Ok am a little clearer on the US/Canada Husband-wife stuff but you are saying that in other countries if both parents die with debt in excess of assets other people can be held responsible ie children? Could the children disown themselves to get out of it?

sh*t, druth! What happens when they die? I assume you and your SO will inherit it, right? A friend of mine in Brazil just inherited a debt from his mother. Id be very scared!

Fortunately, debts don't get inherited here in the US (except for long-term care debts in a few states like Pennsylvania, which's another topic, grumble grumble...) All that can happen is that the debts get repaid by anything in the dead person's estate, and if that isn't enough, then anything else gets written off. That doesn't stop debt collectors from calling you and strongly implying they're your responsibility to pay, on the other hand - and if you do give in, you can be legally obliged to keep paying, so don't.

Yup, the estate will pay the debts, and I expect there will be nothing left after. Thank goodness for social security and that they can't take it as a lump sum because they are probably already close to having nothing and we certainly aren't giving them anything!

Can you inherit somebody else's debts in other countries? That's horrible. "Your parents were irresponsible, so screw you forever"

Your mindset is in the wrong frame to understand it; atomizing people and their lives. The best base example is of a wife & husband with a fully unified financial structure: their names are both on everything, everything is a joint account, and so forth. You can probably grasp that if the husband passes away that the debts he accumulated don't simply vanish. The wife still has them. The debts aren't considered something he raised but something they raised.

Similarly, in other cultures an estate can be considered a family's and not an individual's. In that view, the passing on of debts isn't too strange. In that view, the way we have it can be considered strange for reasons I won't go into unless you are curious.

Ok am a little clearer on the US/Canada Husband-wife stuff but you are saying that in other countries if both parents die with debt in excess of assets other people can be held responsible ie children? Could the children disown themselves to get out of it?

In Soviet Russia you don't DeFOO from your parents, your parents disown you. I had to make that joke.

Tl;dr A woman has been pressured to pay for many things in her sister in law's wedding, and the bill is adding up to $15,000. Yea you read that right--$15,000. It wiped out her savings account. I reapet: not her own wedding.

Tl;dr A woman has been pressured to pay for many things in her sister in law's wedding, and the bill is adding up to $15,000. Yea you read that right--$15,000. It wiped out her savings account. I reapet: not her own wedding.

OMG, that is the most horrible thing I have ever read. I can't imagine ever doing any of those things, as the bride or as the maid of honor! I would sit down with the bride, give her a reality check, and take myself out of the wedding if she didn't snap out of it. Craziness!

Tl;dr A woman has been pressured to pay for many things in her sister in law's wedding, and the bill is adding up to $15,000. Yea you read that right--$15,000. It wiped out her savings account. I reapet: not her own wedding.

Wow. Someone better lay some towels around her husband so it will hurt less when his jaw hits the floor when he finds out.

Tl;dr A woman has been pressured to pay for many things in her sister in law's wedding, and the bill is adding up to $15,000. Yea you read that right--$15,000. It wiped out her savings account. I reapet: not her own wedding.

Tl;dr A woman has been pressured to pay for many things in her sister in law's wedding, and the bill is adding up to $15,000. Yea you read that right--$15,000. It wiped out her savings account. I reapet: not her own wedding.

OMG, that is the most horrible thing I have ever read. I can't imagine ever doing any of those things, as the bride or as the maid of honor! I would sit down with the bride, give her a reality check, and take myself out of the wedding if she didn't snap out of it. Craziness!

Not to mention that the bride advertised this as an "all expenses paid..." WTF! Each bachelor party I've gone to has been paid evenly by everyone (save for the future bride).

For my brother's wedding, my sister and her husband paid for the Sangeeth (spelling?), which is a dinner event the night before their wedding...but they offered and insisted on hosting it, plus they could afford it.

Tl;dr A woman has been pressured to pay for many things in her sister in law's wedding, and the bill is adding up to $15,000. Yea you read that right--$15,000. It wiped out her savings account. I reapet: not her own wedding.

^ a must read!

This is truly astonishing! What the fuck? But also the OP/bridesmaid played a huge role in enabling this and needs to grow a backbone to put a stop to it all. She let it get so far out of hand!

She resolved everything so fast that I wonder if the whole story was made up. Read the end of it.

I'll bet you are right. It was resolved entirely too neatly.

Thanks for sharing this link. I'm now waiting with bated breath to hear the results of that dinner.

I didn't think the end so far was all that neat; it read like the OP hit her limit and started to take the actions she was stalling on, thinking they'd be too hard. They ended up not being as hard as she thought. I don't think you get to where the OP is personally (strong marriage, successful business, healthy savings account) if you can't make progress when you set your mind to something.

She resolved everything so fast that I wonder if the whole story was made up. Read the end of it.

I'll bet you are right. It was resolved entirely too neatly.

Thanks for sharing this link. I'm now waiting with bated breath to hear the results of that dinner.

I didn't think the end so far was all that neat; it read like the OP hit her limit and started to take the actions she was stalling on, thinking they'd be too hard. They ended up not being as hard as she thought. I don't think you get to where the OP is personally (strong marriage, successful business, healthy savings account) if you can't make progress when you set your mind to something.

She's still out a huge chunk of money for the cabin and a bunch of the other stuff. I'm also certain she's being set up for a velociraptor play when the rest of the family, including her own husband. After all, the bride has deliberately been spreading lies about how the poster has "agreed" to "treat" everyone to an "all expenses paid" bachelorette party, but the poster hasn't been willing to open her mouth so as to let anyone know about the truth. I suspect that she'll be velociraped by her husband's entire family once they find out how "unreasonable" she's being and how she's going back on her word and being such a bitch to the Poor Innocent And Vulnerable Little Addict Who Just Has To Go Out And Use Now Because Of The Drama.

She resolved everything so fast that I wonder if the whole story was made up. Read the end of it.

I'll bet you are right. It was resolved entirely too neatly.

Thanks for sharing this link. I'm now waiting with bated breath to hear the results of that dinner.

I didn't think the end so far was all that neat; it read like the OP hit her limit and started to take the actions she was stalling on, thinking they'd be too hard. They ended up not being as hard as she thought. I don't think you get to where the OP is personally (strong marriage, successful business, healthy savings account) if you can't make progress when you set your mind to something.

She's still out a huge chunk of money for the cabin and a bunch of the other stuff. I'm also certain she's being set up for a velociraptor play when the rest of the family, including her own husband. After all, the bride has deliberately been spreading lies about how the poster has "agreed" to "treat" everyone to an "all expenses paid" bachelorette party, but the poster hasn't been willing to open her mouth so as to let anyone know about the truth. I suspect that she'll be velociraped by her husband's entire family once they find out how "unreasonable" she's being and how she's going back on her word and being such a bitch to the Poor Innocent And Vulnerable Little Addict Who Just Has To Go Out And Use Now Because Of The Drama.

Can't believe I just read through that entire wedding thread.... I'm ashamed of myself.

Psychopath Bride is going to be embarrased when the hype she generated doesn't live up to expectations.

Tl;dr A woman has been pressured to pay for many things in her sister in law's wedding, and the bill is adding up to $15,000. Yea you read that right--$15,000. It wiped out her savings account. I reapet: not her own wedding.

^ a must read!

This is truly astonishing! What the fuck? But also the OP/bridesmaid played a huge role in enabling this and needs to grow a backbone to put a stop to it all. She let it get so far out of hand!

That's pretty amazing that the OP is saying this ordeal has cost her an upcoming family vacation (she can no longer afford) and she's still considering allowing her SIL to spend more of her money. How does someone rationalize that?

I dunno, Cassie, I'm still holding onto hope that this is a real story. But I could just be gullible. If real, you know that impending marriage is going to be a disaster -- the addict bride who's been clean for less than a year, going on an exceptionally entitled rampage whereby she shakes down her SIL to the tune of $15k, and eight kids between the bride and the groom, where the bride is still working on getting back some custody rights for hers?

I could be wrong-it has happened once or twice before:)) It is just hard to imagine that anyone could be that gullible. Give anyone my last 15k in the world-nope (except my kids, hubby of course & for something important) . I actually hope it is not real.

The kind of thing that happened in the wedding thread occurs a lot in families that have addiction. A recovering addict, in many ways, is like a newborn child who has to learn about boundaries and about what is or isn't appropriate. Interacting with, say, a 30-year-old who's less than a year sober isn't the same as interacting with a normal 30-year-old. That person's understanding of how human nature and society really works (as opposed to the artificial reality she's constructed for herself) may well be about on par with a one-year-old's.

Addicts get as sick as they do because they construct a bizarre, twisted version of reality and then spend years living in it. They reinterpret everything that happens to them, and all interactions with other humans, in the context of their addictive practice. They attribute all sorts of weird motivations to others, their punishment/reward circuitry is often fried, and they sometimes truly don't understand reality outside the context of the addiction culture. That's one of the reasons why ongoing support is so necessary: it helps the recovering addict develop age appropriate social skills. You can't treat a person who's stepping away from an old addiction as though they're still using (obviously), but they're generally not normal adults either. Boundary challenged would be an understatement.

The kind of thing that happened in the wedding thread occurs a lot in families that have addiction. A recovering addict, in many ways, is like a newborn child who has to learn about boundaries and about what is or isn't appropriate. Interacting with, say, a 30-year-old who's less than a year sober isn't the same as interacting with a normal 30-year-old. That person's understanding of how human nature and society really works (as opposed to the artificial reality she's constructed for herself) may well be about on par with a one-year-old's.

Addicts get as sick as they do because they construct a bizarre, twisted version of reality and then spend years living in it. They reinterpret everything that happens to them, and all interactions with other humans, in the context of their addictive practice. They attribute all sorts of weird motivations to others, their punishment/reward circuitry is often fried, and they sometimes truly don't understand reality outside the context of the addiction culture. That's one of the reasons why ongoing support is so necessary: it helps the recovering addict develop age appropriate social skills. You can't treat a person who's stepping away from an old addiction as though they're still using (obviously), but they're generally not normal adults either. Boundary challenged would be an understatement.

This is... a) Remarkably perceptive and I'm gonna have to ponder it, and b) explains a whole lot about 2 people in my family and the way I interact with them without putting it into actual words before.

The kind of thing that happened in the wedding thread occurs a lot in families that have addiction. A recovering addict, in many ways, is like a newborn child who has to learn about boundaries and about what is or isn't appropriate. Interacting with, say, a 30-year-old who's less than a year sober isn't the same as interacting with a normal 30-year-old. That person's understanding of how human nature and society really works (as opposed to the artificial reality she's constructed for herself) may well be about on par with a one-year-old's.

Addicts get as sick as they do because they construct a bizarre, twisted version of reality and then spend years living in it. They reinterpret everything that happens to them, and all interactions with other humans, in the context of their addictive practice. They attribute all sorts of weird motivations to others, their punishment/reward circuitry is often fried, and they sometimes truly don't understand reality outside the context of the addiction culture. That's one of the reasons why ongoing support is so necessary: it helps the recovering addict develop age appropriate social skills. You can't treat a person who's stepping away from an old addiction as though they're still using (obviously), but they're generally not normal adults either. Boundary challenged would be an understatement.

TGS, Nice Abnorm Psych summary.

Logged

"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

Addicts get stuck emotionally at the age they first started using. So if they started using at 16 then emotionally they are a 16 yo when they quit.

That's assuming they were at age 16 emotionally when they started using. They frequently aren't.

A kid who grows up in a family where it's considered normal for people to not function at anything resembling an appropriate developmental level may be 16 years old chronologically, but have the reading or math skills of a 2nd-grader, the emotional regulation skills of a 5-year-old, the practical cleaning and elder or child care skills of a 30-year-old, the lie detection capability of a seasoned FBI interrogator, but the social skills and boundary awareness of a toddler. In families like these, kids are raised to be either future adult-shaped infants, or future enablers. Maybe both.

The 16 years the kid has lived chronologically have generally been in a very twisted, maladaptive environment. They didn't get 16 years of normal cause and effect, normal interpersonal interactions in which people respond appropriately to negative behavior, or normal boundaries and social expectations. Their reasons for choosing to use in the first place come partly from the twisted head space they develop, which is frequently nourished and reinforced by the people around them. When-- if-- the user emerges from the fog years later, gets away from the addictive practice, and decides to live, a whole lot of what they have to do is unlearning some of the bad logic, false assumptions, and messed up values that have made up their world view. A lot of what they knew, or thought they knew, is just plain wrong. They truly don't know what's right or what's normal.

Here's an example. Two imaginary 16-year-old high school girls are in the principal's office for dress code violations. Both are being written up and punished in some way. Both are embarrassed at having been singled out. But they react in very different ways.

Kid #1, raised in a normal cause and effect environment, understands she's in the office because of something she chose to wear. She knew the rules, chose not to follow them, and is experiencing a pretty predictable result even though she's gotten away with wearing similar clothing in the past. She also knows that when the punishment is over, it's over. So she sees no point in making the situation worse than it is. After the incident is over, she makes better choices about what to wear to school.

Kid #2, raised in an abnormal environment, understands she's in the office because her teacher is being an unreasonable bitch who's out to get her. She also knew the rules, but she truly doesn't believe they should apply to her or that there should be consequences for breaking them. She believes the rules are stupid and that people are wrong to impose them on her. Her belief in her moral rectitude is sincere, and it's also self defense. Since she's used to being hit or beaten for any action that displeases an adult, she has reason to believe that any mistake will not only result in a beating but will be held against her and thrown in her face for months or years. She therefore refuses to admit that she did anything wrong even though it's obvious her clothing violates the dress code. She searches desperately for reasons why it's not her fault: someone else bought her the clothing, or she got away with wearing it before so that's "proof" the rules aren't real. Meanwhile she doubles down on her bet by continuing to find and wear similar clothes in the future. These are necessary survival behaviors. Every time an authority figure fails to report the dress code violations, in her mind she "wins" because she sees proof she's right about why the rules don't matter and she doesn't have to follow them. Every time she gets called on the violation, in her mind she "wins" because she sees proof the people around her are wrong or unreasonable, therefore what she's doing is right and acceptable.

Now, suppose Kid #2, age 16, were to start using tomorrow. She wouldn't be frozen emotionally at age 16. She'd be frozen at the developmental level she has, with severely maladaptive behaviors. Her understanding of causality, marred as it is by magical thinking, is at about a 3-year-old's.

Fast-forward a couple decades, and Kid #1 and Kid #2 meet again at their high school reunion. Kid #2 has stepped away from her addictive practice but is less than a year sober. Kid #1 has a mainstream job, maybe a spouse and some kids. They decide to hang out a bit and get caught up. Is Kid #2 likely to make a strong hint that her friend ought to "lend" her money, or see anything wrong with going through her friend's purse to find and borrow some lipstick?

I was texting my mom last night when she told me that their washer broke. Turns out my dad believes it's cheaper to buy a brand new washer rather than to fix the current one they have. They sent me a picture of the washer they wanted with the price tag next to it...$699! And to top it off, of course they NEED to get the matching dryer at the tune of another $699. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the dryer they have now, but it HAD to match. Not sure what they're going to do with the current dryer, but I'll gladly take it if they're going to toss it.

Addicts get stuck emotionally at the age they first started using. So if they started using at 16 then emotionally they are a 16 yo when they quit.

Not exactly, though stagnated development can occur. Its more like they are a 16 year old who has PTSD and the inability to frame their world into a "standard" viewpoint that non-addicts see... But saying its more of a pause button situation isn't really accurate, you can't just un-pause and wait two years and consider them an 18yo.

Edit: I should refresh the thread more. TGS nailed it on the head.

« Last Edit: September 15, 2016, 01:37:35 PM by PriestTheRunner »

Logged

"The mathematical formula for the number of motorcycles you need is x+1, where x is the number of motorcycles you currently have."

I was texting my mom last night when she told me that their washer broke. Turns out my dad believes it's cheaper to buy a brand new washer rather than to fix the current one they have. They sent me a picture of the washer they wanted with the price tag next to it...$699! And to top it off, of course they NEED to get the matching dryer at the tune of another $699. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the dryer they have now, but it HAD to match. Not sure what they're going to do with the current dryer, but I'll gladly take it if they're going to toss it.

Wow, I cant imagine the decor in your own house if you cannot appreciate the simple necessity of color matched washer and dryers.

My treasured mother called me today. After looking up a few things, she explained "I owe the CRA twelve thousand dollars." Then she says to my bewilderment, "I have no idea how it could have gotten this bad."

I'm puzzled. "We do know mother. You didn't properly fill out your TD1 forms for your employers." My dear, widow mother works two full-time jobs and has never filled out a TD1 form correctly. As a result her employers ignorantly don't deduct enough taxes from her paycheques over the year.

She states, "Maybe that's why." Now me, being a big confused why she waffles on this, replies "No mother, it is not a maybe." I prep my cherry voice. "It is the reason. We've been over this twice."

As an aside, I kinda find the Canadian tax system disgusting. My poor, widow mother makes less than a third my hourly salary but pays more taxes than I do. (Because of various deductions, my first ~43K is not taxable income but only her first 12K is not taxed.)

An update on my beloved mother's story:

- She contacted CPP, they will start deducting income taxes appropriately- She contacted her first job, they'll start deducting additional taxes- She gave notice to her second job because frankly the work isn't worth it. I think the discovery that she is effectively only actually making 60-70% of the hourly rate (because of taxes) convinced her to stop working there. It is not a pleasant job.- The CRA, whom for years I claim is the friendliest government agency, offered her the solution of them putting an interest free lien on her home (when she sells it they'll get paid the amount owing in back taxes). They also explained how to mitigate this in the future (see the two first bullets).

I still dislike the tax system and how the current government has decided to throw horizontal tax equality under the bus but somehow, through all this madness, the CRA rarely ceases to amaze me at how competent they are at being a decent organization.

An update on my beloved mother's story:... - The CRA, whom for years I claim is the friendliest government agency, offered her the solution of them putting an interest free lien on her home (when she sells it they'll get paid the amount owing in back taxes).

Wow, that seams generious. I imagine it is maybe available only to seniors...

Wow, that seams generious. I imagine it is maybe available only to seniors...

CRA is just the most gangsta institute in the government. I've contemplated this before and the logical conclusion is that the CRA doesn't benefit from being harsh so it might as well be kind.

Some of the other departments in government or crown corporation are.........not as pleasant. Immigration is basically hell, CBC1 is a revolving door of corruption and sexual assault cases, NSLSC just doesn't understand its mandate, Fisheries And Oceans Canada has done a stellar job, absolutely stellar job at slashing fish populations, and my favourite least favourite has to be AirCanada. Somehow it still exists. No one understands how but it still exists.

1 It is not a rare sight to have a CBC host, who officiated a party's director's wedding, interview the father of the same director and neither reveal their ties. Or a reporter harassing five governments straight to get a senate appointment. Or someone being a paid contractor for a political party being a paid commentor (again, no disclosure).

She resolved everything so fast that I wonder if the whole story was made up. Read the end of it.

I'll bet you are right. It was resolved entirely too neatly.

Not so neatly...

They are still out about $6000+.... but I guess they had planned to spend $2500 (condo rental) + $300 (dress) + $1800 (rehearsal dinner for 30) + $800 (gift "very expensive bowls, pots and pans).... and the OP is getting to take a mini 3 day vacation with friends and kids at the lake now, too....

She resolved everything so fast that I wonder if the whole story was made up. Read the end of it.

I'll bet you are right. It was resolved entirely too neatly.

Not so neatly...

They are still out about $6000+.... but I guess they had planned to spend $2500 (condo rental) + $300 (dress) + $1800 (rehearsal dinner for 30) + $800 (gift "very expensive bowls, pots and pans).... and the OP is getting to take a mini 3 day vacation with friends and kids at the lake now, too....

Sadly, they locked the thread today after many people were questioning if the story was fake, but before the OP ever relayed how the "confrontation dinner" went. Seeing how frequently the OP had posted before the dinner, and then not at all after, I'm giving up my naivety and agreeing with Cassie that it was all a ruse.